Talk:Talon/@comment-8550255-20161003133633/@comment-28977071-20161015121253
Ooh-kay, this time I got the video's meaning. I think I got the macro part too now. Firstly, I'd want to stress out for any random bypassing reader that the following conversation is purely on the theoretical basis and in no way are we or the wiki community encouraging the use of macros as they are rightfully a reason to be banned. Ok, with the balast done, let's look at the issue.. I don't see a problem in target dying from just the part of the macro, the rest'd be simply discarded then. Also, such a "weakness" applies basically to any macros in general, hence it's a very weak argument why specifically should be unsuitable for macroing. Target moving and getting CC'ed sound like more legit arguments, but as a programmer by profession I can tell you that this is just a matter of individual quality of script in general, including those cheating macros as well. If I really didn't care and wanted just to produce a low-quality product, I could code a trivial script that'd have the above-mentioned flaws. But if I exerted a bit more effort to write a complex script, it'd relatively easily take care of such caveats. It'd all solely depend on the quality of a cheat provider. Let me denote just as F in this section. As I see it, the only problem with your suggested macro EQWR is that Q and R have very long execution time, while macroing of the commands'd be best for glueing together the zero-execution time actions. Hence I see a simple solution how to theoretically utilize the macro on : FEW or EFW Let's denote the macro as M''', then you could manually do '''M-Q-AA for the full combo (or Q-'M'-AA if script author was clever enough to make F conditional by considering the distance). Yes, if one'd use macros, there'd be entirely no point to use input buffering. The two things achieve the overlapping goals. Macro'ed FEW and macro'ed EFW'd have exactly the same execution times if implemented correctly. However, there is no practical space to consider the aspect of macros in evaluating the combo execution times as this LoL wiki is about the official LoL game that explicitly forbids the use of any cheats and punishes this with bans. Again, I fully identify with this approach, as a player who lowers him/herself to the use of cheats to be able to compete on the same level of equality with honorable players, can only earn my compassion and condolences. He may bluff the others, but the sad thing is that he's bluffing himself. Plus I've already met few such people in person IRL so I know who I'm talking about from experience. The crucial difference is that a fair player can achieve almost the same results with input buffering (that can optimize the execution times) and customized keybinding (that can optimize the average finger movement distances) as cheaters with macros (that can optimize both execution times and finger movement distances), however legally without the fear of being banned. Again, the fear not being the right reason, but player's own honesty to him/herself and the rewarding feeling of truly deserving own achievements, not as an act of charity from someone or something else. The entire argument lies within the fact that we are communicating on the different levels of accuracy- where you are satisfied with seconds, I demand milliseconds because even such small time spans can hugely impact the game result on higher ranks. There is no real way how an organic human being could permanently achieve the reaction speed of either macros or input buffering, except for an occasional luck. Unlike computers with strongly discretified signalling models on data layer, the human nervous system is literally fuelled by fuzzy logic. Not questioning the influence of quantum mechanics, it is highly pseudo-stochastic and no single repeated action would be done in exactly the same way (except, again, for some occasional absurdly small stroke of luck). This results in the fluctuating time intervals between either strokes of individual keys or casts of individual abilities, no matter how hard you try. The input buffering and macros, on the other hand, will always perfectly optimize the given time window to minimum (unless specifically pre-programmed otherwise by either Rito programmers or script providers, respectively). My guess is that input buffering and macros might even achieve the lag immunity for that one specific time window as both the ability preceding and succeeding the given window'd very possibly be sent in the same game-data packet on the server (this however wouldn't prevent the lags experienced earlier or later in combos)- something that cannot be always achieved manually. So, yes, my estimate of 20% time reduction within an overall combo was utterly incorrect because of long execution times of and . However the small improvement should still be present with input buffering, even on , unless again specifically coded otherwise by game/script developers. It is admittedly small enough to not be distinguishable by video look, and as an opponent's reaction can hardly pass under the 170 ms reaction body limit (that is, with own human hand, not with some futuristic brain-scanning gaming helmet), I agree that both versions of FEW and EFW should be impossible to counter by pure reflex. Nevertheless, the opponents have stronger prediction abilities the higher we go in MMR, hence the impact of input buffering or macros'd show up in such games, even if the raw execution time benefit is well below 170 ms and undetectable by low quality video frames.